iN THE HIGH COURT ore' KARNATAKA" " if T.
CIRCUET BENCH AT £)HAR\&'x*:.'.$_i'::T~.V A 1 _
DATED THIS THE 2013 .
.B3F"O17éi4}g:_ . .
THE HONBLE 2sa5R.JTjsT1cE."A..:--.TT
WRIT PE'if§f!f§.ON NO;6vTS€¥€§]-'_2§)O9(§f{l\iI4KE3i:?;)
BETWEEN: " " ' .
V31'. SWITCHGEARS AND'TE££NSI?.0.RMERS
No.33, 3RD BTTAsE,4n:_MA1N; PEENYA _ j
IN§3USTRIAI?.._A&;':§A, '
BANGALORE _58§"R33«;_PRESE?¢TED {Ts
AUTH0R1sVEE%.SIGNATQRYT_' H
sHR1.T«,«VTRUD_RA£>z'25_ ..
AGE 69 YEARS, we 3AN_ ALORE.
--- ' V " ' ' ...PET1'moNEz2
(BY S-RI. V.M.-- SHE_E'LA\{A'Ie'FEi, ADV.)
AN D':
.__...;..-........... '-
' T "T; aHi§r"3Li%'ELECTéiéi1T'¥ SUPPLY COMPANY,
.»:~.°: _
_ :;:.Qxe.P€n.R'mfE OFFICE, P.B.ROAI:>,
m.;iB_:.iv, 1:33: zfrs MANAGING DIRECXFGR,
.' SU?E§€iE~I'i'ENDING ENC§iNEER{ELE}
TE_N£)'E'i2ENG AND PROCEDURE,
m:s;_<:o:vs, HUBLI.
" V. '3i;.TI~:"i4: EXECUTIVE ENGINEEWELEJ
T (B? SRE. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADV.)
ANID M [}IVIS§C)N, HESCOM,
BHATAPRJABHA, BELGAUM DIST,
..,,RES?OI'~IDENT'S
T}-HS PE'I'f'i'ION ES FILEE UNDER ARTICLES 225 AND 227
OF' THE CONS'l"I'¥'U'}'ION OF' INDIA PRAYXNG TO QUASI-I THE)
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED es/01 /2009_.i§S'§S{}E_B--;:_T'iiE
ewe AT ANNEXURE ---- LAND ETC. " e e. _ * * 4_
THIS PETITION COMING ONFOR4PRE'LIMfNZ$i?'fii<F;;§I?IN€3;~ 2
THIS DAY, me eeum' MADE TH}; Fo:,1;e,w:_r:e; -- '- _ * '~
.w..m..~...e't< D
Ewen though the nieatiier is 1i'st.ed --:€br preIin3ir1a1y
hearing, with C{)I'1Sf§:I'1'£"'_0f taken up
for final dispesai.
2. supplied some
.V It appears, a joint
__tIr'1e presence of the ofiicials of
the reeV;"3a;1de;V;§t:-;."V$a':fs_ as the petitioner. According to
EIfespender1ts;.....ivt was found that the transformers
' ~--.f:he petitioner were defective. Hence, a
.' nefiee_A§§é;s..e:issued by the respoxxdents to the petitioner
fipon him to five an explanation which is in the
A ef final netiee. On 16/07/2008 e. reply was
Vfgiven to the said final notice, the respondents,
nevertheless, have black listed the petitioner. Hence,
this writ petition.
:3:
3. Mr. V.M.SheeIava.t1th, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits that befoxeiseuilig
final notice, there was no show cause
entire proceedings culminating in F:
petitioner is liable to be “I 4′ i – i
4. Mr. Shivraj ‘ed
appearing for the indeed,
before issuing 1iio1:iee,§fn.o cause notice was
isstied, also held and no personal
hean”15.g was J”
,5. L’ imam, before black Iisting, it is essential
ehow cause notice is required to be issued, a
A ._ and then personal hearing is gven. The
é;aidv*..ei<ercise is not done. Hence, I am of the View that
* stifle order of black listing the petitioner
'ivorrants interference. Consequently, the following
'i order is passed: ifl "
: 4 :
6. Petition is allowed. The Impugned o__rder at
Annexure “L” stands quashed. It is gthe
respondents to inmate appropriate L .’éig.’§i;1St
the petifioner, if, they chosejtéi do , i
and made absolute.
Mr. Shivaraj P. MfidLi1″G~3,,» Aciiiacatgé “.isV7} )Vc9r:11’§;tted ‘to’
fie powef tbufweeks.
. . ' . " kmv